Creating play environments for children with special needs.

Educators are gradually acknowledging the appropriateness of children's play as a natural avenue for learning, social experiences and emotional enrichment (Dempsey & Frost, 1993). They are increasingly aware of play's benefits (Elkind, 1988) due to a growing body of literature related to the design of play environments (Frost, 1992; Olds, 1989). Unfortunately, educators remain uninformed about one key aspect of play environment design--the safe inclusion of children with special needs.

In order to include all children, we must move quickly to determine how caregivers and educators can increase safety in play environments. We must also establish who is responsible for monitoring and ensuring the safety of play environments in integrated settings. To ignore these questions could be dangerous.

Consider an incident that recently occurred in an elementary school with a population including children with special needs. At the request of school personnel, the Parent Teacher Association purchased a swing designed for children with physical challenges. This swing was installed alongside regular swings on the A-frame already in use on the playground. A major safety problem immediately became apparent. Pea gravel, an acceptable resilient material for cushioning falls under most circumstances, did not provide sure footing for teachers lifting children from wheelchairs to the special swing. The PTA discovered that the solution to this problem was expensive. A synthetic, resilient surface could be installed, but it would have to be applied to a base of concrete or asphalt. The estimated cost of the entire project was over $2,000. At their next meeting, the PTA members learned that the school district would not assume the expenditure, and that another donation of PTA funds was the only alternative. After a lengthy debate, the PTA narrowly passed a motion in favor of the donation.

It is disturbing, however, that a crucial decision regarding the safe inclusion of children with special needs on public school playgrounds was made at a poorly attended PTA meeting by ill-informed, albeit well-intentioned, parents. This example also raises serious questions about whether implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) can achieve the safe inclusion of children with disabilities in play environments. The authors will examine the implications of ADA and the role of developmentally appropriate practice (Bredekamp, 1987).

Inclusion Defined

To be truly inclusive, a play environment must address three fundamental components: access, activity and variability. Many supposedly inclusive play environments provide access, but fall short in the provision of either activity or variability. Access refers to a person's ability to physically enter a desired location. This is most often discussed in terms of door widths, ramps and the absence or presence of barriers. Activity is a person's ability to take an active part in an experience once access is provided. It is not enough to get close to one's playmates without being able to engage in the same activities. The third aspect of inclusion, variability, refers to the ability of all persons to select from a range of options to find a personally appropriate choice. Variability is critical if we want all children to experience autonomy of thought and action. How do we ensure that play environments include these components? First, we must accept the responsibility for making each setting we create for children truly inclusive.

A Mandate for Inclusion

ADA requires that reasonable steps be taken to ensure that all citizens have the same opportunities for education, recreation and job fulfillment. The law does not, however, prescribe the specific details of these "reasonable steps." In essence, we must provide "like-kind" experiences to all citizens. Therefore, in play environments, all children should have access to a variety of play experiences found in a particular environment. For example, if construction play is available, then all children must be able to participate. Making play environments inclusive means that we must examine the types of experiences available to the majority of children and then ensure that those experiences are also available to children with special needs.

But which "special needs" must be addressed? Should an environment address every conceivable disabling condition? The ADA appears, once again, to be more concerned with intent than with exhausting every possible scenario. All special needs must be addressed as those needs arise. Every child care center or school may not be asked to enroll a child with a visual impairment, but if this scenario should arise, the school must be prepared to serve that child's need for access, activity and variability.

The implications of ADA and developmentally appropriate practice suggest that opportunities for play should be equally available to all children (Bredekamp, 1993). As the legal rights afforded to special needs children under ADA slowly become part of our consciousness, we must be reminded that ensuring the equality of play opportunities is not only mandated, but also vitally important for the learning and development of all children.

Safety, Developmental Appropriateness and Inclusion

Now that we have defined inclusion, we can consider its relationship to two other key elements of play environment design: safety and developmental appropriateness. This relationship can be expressed graphically in the form of a Roman arch. The primary quality, safety, forms the base section of the structure. The vertical supporting blocks, which rest on the foundation of safety, represent a balanced structure of individual and age appropriateness, the two defining characteristics of developmental appropriateness. The capstone represents the environmental design elements ensuring the full inclusion of all children, specifically those children with special needs. The Roman arch suggests that the overall effect functions as a whole, not as separate pieces. The placement of the three components indicates the conditional or directional relationships among the components.

A Safe Foundation

Play environments for children must, above all, be safe. To place or invite children into an environment with known hazards is not merely unwise, it is unethical. Surveys conducted by the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance have shown that American playgrounds (in preschools, child care centers, elementary schools and public parks) are woefully unsafe. Over 200,000 injuries, many of them preventable, occur on these playgrounds every year. Over 60 percent of these 200,000 injuries are caused by falls to the surfaces surrounding play equipment. Resilient surfaces, such as sand, pea gravel, uniform wood chips or rubber mats, need to be installed and properly maintained. Unfortunately, injuries from falls continue to occur at historically high levels (Bruya & Langendorfer, 1988; Thompson & Bowers, 1989; Wortham & Frost, 1990).

Indoor environments must also be evaluated for safe inclusion practices. Enrollment in center-based child care is burgeoning and many public elementary schools have extended the school day and lengthened the school year. With children spending more time in schools, many critical issues related to safety and inclusion must be addressed.

Developmental Appropriateness for All Children

While safety is the foundation of functional play environments for all children, by itself it does not guarantee an array of creative play opportunities. Environments must support play experiences that are matched to children's developmental levels and are also individually appropriate. In order to implement these principles, play materials must offer a variety of active learning experiences and be within the reach of all children. Each child should be offered many play options, including dramatic play, construction and games involving rules and sensorimotor manipulation. The range and variety of play activities should enable a child to achieve an individual balance of success and challenge.

Developmental appropriateness is built upon the foundation of a safe environment. Without safety, children will not have the freedom to explore, take risks, create or simply enjoy their play activities. It is important, however, not to promote safety by removing all challenges from the play environment. Safety without developmentally appropriate challenge is counter-productive. By following developmentally appropriate practices, play can have a significant effect on children's development. A safe environment offers all children protection and freedom to have full expression in their play activities.

Achieving Safe Inclusion

The issue of safe inclusion is linked to the convergence of the early childhood and early childhood special education fields as legally mandated. Ongoing philosophical and methodological debates continue as experts in both fields attempt to better define the practices that will yield the most successful results in integrated early childhood settings (Bredekamp, 1993; Carta, Atwater, Schwartz & McConnell, 1993; Carta, Schwartz, Atwater & McConnell, 1991; Johnson & Johnson, 1992; Johnson & Johnson, 1993; McLean & Odom, 1993).

Current efforts to achieve safe inclusion are hampered by many factors inherent in the convergence of these two fields. In addition to the lack of consensus regarding appropriate practices in integrated settings, a lack of research to identify quality indicators in integrated programs impedes progress toward achieving safe inclusion. Although some recent research examines the issue of quality in integrated environments (File & Kontos, 1993), we have no model or instrument specifically designed to determine the appropriateness of these settings. Guidelines for developmentally appropriate practice do not specifically address many different aspects of inclusive educational programs. File and Kontos were compelled to use a combination of assessment measures when examining the quality of integrated, early intervention settings. Practitioners must rely on a combination of common sense and other sources they believe will offer reasonable information. One such source is the support staff assigned to inclusive programs. Consulting with physical therapists, occupational therapists and other specialists may yield valuable information to use in planning for the safety and comfort of special needs children (Eichinger & Woltman, 1993).

Outdoor Environments

While the therapeutic importance of outdoor play for exceptional children has been recognized (Frost, 1992; Frost & Klein, 1979; Keller & Hudson, 1991), few resources exist to guide plans for safe inclusion on playgrounds. An excellent source of information on general playground safety is the Handbook for Public Playground Safety, published by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (1990). While this document alerts the practitioner to various safety precautions, it does not specifically address the adaptations necessary for the safe inclusion of children with disabilities. In his book, Play and Playscapes, Joe L. Frost (1992) emphasizes the importance of providing both safety and access to children with disabling conditions.

A simple way to increase access is to provide a variety of low-cost, loose parts that are conducive to cooperative play for children with various developmental challenges (Esbensen, 1991). Increasing the sensory input of playgrounds (Wortham & Wortham, 1989) can also serve to enhance the inclusion of children with certain disabilities, especially those with sensory deficits, such as visual impairments. It is important to retain an element of challenge (Esbensen, 1991) and to create mobility (Frost, 1992) for exceptional children. In order to plan for safe inclusion on playgrounds, Raschke, Dedrick and Hanus (1991) suggest employing a multidisciplinary team approach to determine needs and establish priorities when developing adaptive playgrounds.

Indoor Environments

Indoor environments strongly influence the physical and emotional comfort of children. Care and educational programs for children typically involve indoor classroom activities for a significant portion of the day. Therefore, safety should be a prime consideration for programs (Smith, 1982).

To promote full inclusion in classroom, professionals must consider the influence of physical access on the safety, learning and social interactions of all children. The American Public Health Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics (1992) suggest that children with special needs require more open floor space for freedom of movement than do typical children. Accessibility must also be considered when arranging play materials on shelves. Height ranges for storage that accommodate children's developmental levels, range of vision and reach are often considered by early childhood professionals. Fully inclusive classrooms, however, should place materials and toys at two specific heights. Storing materials at table level and floor level reduces the need for bending or over-reaching, which can cause children to lose their balance. Floor-level placement of materials facilitates materials access and concomitant social play among peers and diminishes the risk of children falling.

In most cases, children with special needs can be fully integrated into indoor environments with appropriate adaptations in materials, equipment, furnishings and room arrangement. Safety considerations require planning, preparation and minimal modifications in daily routines (Aronson, 1991). Most important, early childhood professionals must be considered the primary factor in ensuring all children's health, safety and well-being as they prudently "coach" all children during indoor play activities (Smilansky & Shefatya, 1990). Teachers must focus on individual planning to meet all children's developmental needs while maintaining a consistent, safe and rich learning environment (Wolfgang & Wolfgang, 1992).

Safety Training for Personnel and Peers in Integrated Settings

Safety training for personnel has been considered critical for integrated early education settings (Bruder, 1993; Eichinger & Woltman, 1993; File & Kontos, 1993). The ADA provision that prohibits children with disabling conditions from being denied enrollment in child care and nursery schools serving the public (Surr, 1992) makes safety training more critical than ever. One study involving "ordinary" caregivers found they could be trained to safely and effectively integrate infants with special needs (Ross, 1992). The Connecticut Department of Human Resources, for example, developed a comprehensive safety training system for community-based, integrated child care settings. The project, "Safety Care/Safe Play," trained licensing officials and parents, as well as child care providers (Finn-Stevenson & Stevenson, 1990). This type of training program could help disseminate information on safe inclusion practices in the play environments of community-based child care facilities. Higher education could also address safe inclusion by incorporating this training into existing child development and teacher preparation programs (Stayton & Miller, 1993).

As educators discover ways to facilitate friendships and "coach" children during social play activities, these relationships might play a role in promoting safe, nurturing inclusion (Buswell & Schaffner, 1992; Guralnick, 1993; Peterson & McConnell, 1993). It may be possible for peers to help ensure the safety of their playmates who have disabling conditions. Peer modeling of safe play may have the positive effect of teaching and reinforcing the safety-conscious behavior of playmates. Studies show that young children with special needs in integrated preschool settings are sensitive to peer modeling as a positive method of learning (Fox & Hanline, 1993).

Incorporating the suggestions of Hanline (1985), the teacher's role in fostering safety modeling could be two-fold: 1) recognizing and complimenting peers who model safe practices and 2) encouraging children with disabilities to imitate the modeled behavior. Supporting the formation of friendships among all children may help to build a "safety net" for those children with disabling conditions. As friendships flourish, children may naturally "watch out" for one another.

Conclusion

In conclusion, four major principles should guide the creation of safe, inclusive play environments. First, educators and caregivers must recognize that the primary attribute of any outdoor or indoor play environment is safety. It is only by ensuring safety that children can truly be free to explore and interact with their environment. Second, play environments must reflect the characteristics of developmentally appropriate practice. Following this principle enables early childhood professionals to provide play options that promote self-selected choices and offer challenges that maximize opportunities for children to experience success. The third principle requires that play environments allow for the full inclusion of children with special needs. Professionals must prepare play environments and support spontaneous play experiences that are equitable, rich in variety and accessible for all children. The fourth principle is drawn from an interplay of the three prior principles: safe inclusion of children with special needs requires safety, developmentally appropriate practices and full inclusion to function in unison. Early childhood professionals must consciously implement these principles as a totality in order to prepare safe indoor and outdoor play environments that nurture and support children with special needs.

References

American Public Health Association & American Academy of Pediatrics. (1992). Caring for our children. National health and safety performance standards: Guidelines for out-of-home child care programs. Elk Grove Village, IL: Author.

Aronson, S. S. (1991). Health and safety in child care. New York: HarperCollins.

Bredekamp, S. (1987). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Bredekamp, S. (1993). The relationship between early childhood education and early education special education: Healthy marriage or family feud? Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 13(3), 258-273.

Bruder, M. B. (1993). The provision of early intervention and early childhood special education within community early childhood programs: Characteristics of effective service delivery. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 13(1), 19-37.

Bruya, L. D., & Langendorfer, S. J. (1988). Where our children play: Elementary school playground equipment. Reston, VA: American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance.

Buswell, B., & Schaffner, B. (1992). Building friendships--An important part of schooling. ED 348-806, OSERS (U.S. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services) News in Print, IV(4), 5-9.

Carta, J. J., Atwater, J. B., Schwartz, I. S., & McConnell, S.R. (1993). Developmentally appropriate practices and early childhood special education: A reaction to Johnson and McChesney Johnson. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 13(3), 243-254.

Carta, J. J., Schwartz, I., Atwater, J. B., & McConnell, S. R. (1991). Developmentally appropriate practice: Appraising its usefulness for young children with disabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 11(1), 1-20.

Dempsey, J. D., & Frost, J. L. (1993). Play environments in early childhood education. In B. Spodek (Ed.), Handbook of research on the education of young children. New York: Macmillan.

Eichinger, J., & Woltman, S. (1993). Integration strategies for learners with severe multiple disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 26(1), 18-21.

Elkind, D. (1988). The hurried child. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Esbensen, S. B. (1991). Playground design and mainstreaming issues: Beyond ramps. ED 339-524. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the National Association for the Education of Young Children. November 7, 1991.

File, N., & Kontos, S. (1993). The relationship of program quality to children's play in integrated early intervention settings. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 13(1), 1-18.

Finn-Stevenson, M., & Stevenson, J. J. (1990). Safe care/safe play: Child care as a site for injury prevention. Children Today, 19(2), 16-32.

Fox, L., & Hanline, M. F. (1993). A preliminary evaluation of learning within developmentally appropriate early childhood settings. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 13(3), 308-327.

Frost, J. L. (1992). Play and playscapes. Albany, NY: Delmar Publications.

Frost, J. L., & Klein, B.J. (1979). Children's play and playgrounds. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Guralnick, M.J. (1993). Developmentally appropriate practice in the assessment and intervention of children's peer relations. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 13(3), 344-371.

Hanline, M. F. (1985). Integrating disabled children. Young Children, 40(2), 45-48.

Johnson, J. E., & Johnson, K. M. (1992). Clarifying the developmental perspective in response to Carta, Schwartz, Atwater, and McConnell. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 12(4), 439-457.

Johnson, K.M., & Johnson, J.E. (1993). Rejoinder to Carta, Atwater, Schwartz, and McConnell. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 13(3), 255-257.

Keller, M. J., & Hudson, S. (1991). Theory to practice: Creating play environments for therapeutic recreation experiences. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 62(4), 42-44.

McLean, M. E., & Odom, S. L. (1993). Practices for young children with and without disabilities: A comparison of DEC and NAEYC identified practices. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 13(3), 274-292.

Olds, A. R. (1989). Psychological and physiological harmony in child care center design. Children's Environments Quarterly, 6, 8-16.

Peterson, C. A., & McConnell, S. R. (1993). Factors affecting the impact of social interaction skills interventions in early childhood special education. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 13(1), 38-56.

Raschke, D. B., Dedrick, C., & Hanus, K. (1991). Adaptive playgrounds for all children. Teaching Exceptional Children, 24(1), 25-28.

Ross, H. W. (1992). Integrating infants with disabilities? Can "ordinary" caregivers do it? Young Children, 47(3), 65-71.

Smilansky, S., & Shefatya, L. (1990). Facilitating play. Gaithersburg, MD: Psychosocial and Educational Publications.

Smith, C. A. (1982). Promoting the social development of children. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield.

Stayton, V. D., & Miller, P. S. (1993). Combining general and special early childhood education standards in personnel preparation programs: Experiences from two states. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 13(3), 372-387.

Surr, J. (1992). Early childhood programs and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Young Children, 47(5), 18-21.

Thompson, D., & Bowers, L. (Eds.). (1989). Where our children play: Community park playground equipment. Reston, VA: American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance.

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. (1990). Handbook for public playground safety. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Wolfgang, C. H., & Wolfgang, M. E. (1992). School for young children. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Wortham, S.C., & Frost, J. L. (Eds.). (1990). Playgrounds for young children: National survey and perspectives. Reston, VA: American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance.

Wortham, S.C., & Wortham, M. R. (1989). Designing creative play environments: Infant/toddler development and play. Childhood Education, 65, 295-299.

Suzanne M. Winter is Assistant Professor, Early Chilhood Edducation, University of Texas at San Antonio. Michael J. Bell is Program Administrator, Early Childhood Programs, Arizona Department of Education, Phoenix. James D. Dempsey is Senoir Vice-President, Grounds for Play, Inc.